Good one. Here's what I find puzzling: British experts studied more than 17,000 children born in 1970 for about four decades. Of the children who ate candies or chocolates daily at age 10, 69 percent were later arrested for a violent offense by the age of 34. Of those who didn't have any violent clashes, 42 percent ate sweets daily. Am I missing something, or does this comparison make no sense? And 69% of the kids in the study who ate sweets were later arrested for a violent offense! And I thought we were a violent society on this side of the pond. ________________________________ From: Beth Benoit [[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 12:04 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: [tips] Correlation example
Here's an almost laughable example of "correlation is not causation" that some might find a good example for class. (Well, aren't they almost always laughable??) It's about a study that found that children who eat lots of candy are more likely to be arrested for violent behavior as adults. In all fairness, one researcher did try to encourage people to dig a little deeper: "Previous studies have found better nutrition leads to better behavior, in both children and adults. Moore said his results were not strong enough to recommend parents stop giving their children candies and chocolates. "This is an incredibly complex area," he said. "It's not fair to blame it on the candy." " But in my morning newspaper, neither that conclusion was posted, nor was the journal cited. Only the term "British researchers" was used. Here's the story: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/10/01/crimesider/entry5355367.shtml Beth Benoit Granite State College Plymouth State University New Hampshire --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected]) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
